About your Search

20130801
20130831
STATION
CSPAN2 12
CSPAN 6
CNNW 3
KPIX (CBS) 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27
disgusted in a whole parade of traders, and that includes john mccain, lindsey graham, george bush, who has sponsored the center in texas, and i suffered through two hours of propaganda out of the bush center, and they treat america as a whorehouse. stephen moore treats america like a whorehouse. it is not about the money. c-span keeps playing all of these people. i want to see some balance. one thing mentioned at the george bush center from the hispanic chamber of commerce guy, he was lobbing these wonderful hispanic companies. have any of them enrolled in either a five so they will be true to the 1986 amnesty, which, at that point, required all employers verify eligibility by these workers. they have not done it. we have george bush, mccain, they have done nothing but subvert the law for the last 25 years, and they are trying to put the nail in our coffin now. i would like to see more balance from c-span. there was a wonderful march for jobs in washington dc. i have seen none of that on c- span. i would love to see that. jeb, much loved in alabama, he was the speaker of the conference. th
of then senator biden threatening to impeach then president george bush if he did not get congressional approval before going into iraq. this is becoming a cauldron of uncertainty. it is not good for the region -- >> president clinton lost some missiles in afghanistan. a lot has been written about how that in the end lead to 9/11. you never know about the unintended consequences here, do you? >> no, you don't. president clinton lobbed some missiles into southern iraq and at that point, a lot of people, a lot of our enemies took the notion that we were a paper tiger, that we were not willing to follow through with the actions and that we wanted to just do something. now is not the time to just do something. we ought to have a plan and now that the president has backed up , it is time to all come together and figure out what is it we really want to do that is in the national security interestses of the united states of america and then do it. >> i wanted to -- what greg just mentioned leads into my question. this is all coming down on the anniversary of 9/11. if the house votes what is the chance
dick cheney, george bush, waterboarding, the fbi and others, and the nsa has been unscathed. the only time it has really come up as a matter of debate in the intelligence community was people from the nsa humming forward and saying what a rough time they were having with the fisa court, how hard it was for them to get orders, how hard it was for them to follow up on the information. this is not a rubber stamp. it is constantly scrutinized. it is scrutinized by the house intelligence committee and senate intelligence committee. i realize by going to the american people and saying, congress is taking a look at it, that is not a vote of confidence. people on that committee, and people on the intelligence they take very seriously. mike rogers is conscientious. dutch ruppersberger is as well. the stuff is looked at very carefully. i do not see any significant violation of civil liberties. i do not see any significant -- -- in 2009, balance i, i was at mayor bloomberg's home sunday night in september of 2009, entertained the lord , rupert murdoch was there, all these partial people, and eve
into the tony blare's comments with george bush on the microphone? oh, assad is like honey? what were they talking about? they seemed to like him. >> i don't recall that one. i recall the explaytive. referring to the g8 meeting in 2006 when -- during the israel hezbollah war, and bush leaned over to blare and whatever he called him, he said, you know, if we request get syria to stop this, put a four letter explaytive there, that will calm the situation, and what was interesting about, you know, that comment, and bush did not like that after 2003, 2004 particularly, and i asked bashar about that comment, and i said, what do you think of that comment by bush caught on tape? again, half expecting him to say, oh, you know, typical this, typical all that sort of stuff, he said, i love it. i love it because that means they are thinking about me. they are worried about me. that is part of syria foreign policy is having some sort of leverage. it's a weak country military militarily. the leverage is through the support of hezbollah, iran, support of hamas and palestinian territories. that's th
yankees fans react >>> word from mike emanuel on president george bush, 43 now. apparently he had a procedure yesterday in dallas. this was a statement put out moments ago, reading now, during president george w. bush's examination in the cooper clinic in dallas, a blockage discovered in the an artery in his heart. it continues, at the recommendation of his doctors, president bush agreed to have a extent placed to open the blockage. the procedure was performed successfully this morning without complication at texas health presbyterian hospital, dated august 6th. that would be this morning. president bush is in high spirits and eager to return home tomorrow to resume his normal schedule on thursday. he is grateful to the skilled medical professionals who cared for him. he thanks has family, friends and fellow citizens for their prayers and well-wishers. he encourages us all to get regular checkups end quote. the procedure went this morning apparently without a hitch. a extent was placed inside of his heart or near his heart to remove any of this blockage discovered in the artery of
in the george bush white house. he's taking your comments and questions as we discuss syria this morning. jerry is up next from cookville, tennessee. jerry good morning. caller: good morning. the president is talking about the shot in the bow. i find it frightening when it comes to this president and foreign policy. it was a game of chess, i believe it would be a check mate game against this president. he's done nothing but absolute disaster. look at north africa. look at that. some democrats are calling it a success his foreign policy. it's frightening what's happening. i don't see anything that's any good. just think, if he happen to won the nobel peace prize, how bad things really might be. host: we'll go to democratic line, dave is waiting from washington d.c. good morning. caller: peter. the reason that the u.k. not to proceed is because there was a lack of conclusive evidence. in the regions and suburbs of damascus there is not conclusive evidence that the chemical weapon attack were perpetrated by a horrible attack regime. the obama administration has made entirely clear that they wi
of texas does recently because of the leadership though shown by george w. bush, is that when you look at states like arizona, not typical in arizona, but i was just thinking alabama, arkansas' next. if you look at arizona, if memory serves arizona export something like $50 billion a year. if you look at texas can we export $206 billion a year. 35% of those exports go directly to mexico. i think george w. bush understood the tenuous but important relationship that has to exist with our neighbors to the south. i think he was very strategic and smart in building and growing and fostering a relationship over time. and today, texas is benefiting from his leadership back then. a large proportion of the hispanic owned firms in this state and minority owned firms in the state are actually owned by mexican nationals. and so this didn't happen by accident. it happened because very strategic visionary leadership happened two, three decades or a decade ago. now we are benefiting from the. >> creating an environment. >> absolutely. doesn't happen overnight. now you see other states beginning to re
have claimed and therefore george bush could say don't pay into it, simply give each person the fund and they can invest on their pension. if you monetize your deferred compensation, that is a terrible idea. it further damages the devotee of people to have social and there is a link to having a social wage is that it dramatically is important for the society because then people start to see of objectively the interest is united. one of the great tracks to american history is rather than to countercyclical spending through the social expenditure, it is always been done through the military spending. you spend militarily through bringing the economy back to life. that was the whole post world war golden age etc we've so in that sense one has to confront this idea because it is easy to do the spending on the military because it is already a hari article society in the military and encampment that the more you begin to feel objectively or ties with other people are there you might be able to create a political movement where people subjectively then relate to the common agenda and i thin
president george w. bush made his case for going to war with iraq and why mideast dictator was an essential step for both the united states and the world. >> the iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. on the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror, and seeks nuclear weapons. >> nearly 11 years later another u.s. president is explaining why he feels getting involved in the middle east is in the best interest of the u.s. people. my next guest though says the similarities between the two conflicts are few. jane newton small is a terrific reporter and times magazine reporter. you've written an article that a lot of team are talking about for "time," "six ways syria 2013 isn't iraq in 2003." differences you say include how the u.s. is handling the regime, the time commitment given by the u.s., the support from the arab world and yooirp, weapons of mass destruction, and how much support there is from congress. let's begin with the first difference you list. regime change. explain
baker had with george bush because -- i don't know exactly the reason, but i said, for example, the other day, the national security adviser went to moscow to meet with the russian president has started arranging a relationship. if i was secretary of state would not have tolerated that. that is my job. and as national security adviser , you're a staff person, not a principle. i remember when general powell got the role. he understood. he came around to me and said, i am a member of your staff. obviously the president is my main guy, but my job is to staff the council. and so i think that is beginning to get out of kilter. in my book have quite a lot to say about the structural governance and how it is going, i think, in the wrong direction. >> host: secretary george shultz, a couple more issues on your mind. number one, demographics. you're worried about demographics. >> guest: i'm not worried. an observant. i see that the demographics of the world had changed and are continuing to change rapidly. the developed countries basically have no fertility. they are getting to be older
at two other instances in which an american president used force, in the case of george bush in iraq, he had a congressional authorization and one u.n. resolution. in syria he has, president obama has neither of those but i think the u.s. congress and many in the need yaw are saying, what about libya? i mean we went to war in libya without a congressional authorization. we spent one billion dollars. we had 220 tomahawk missile strikes, et cetera, et cetera. what do we have at the end of it? we have benghazi with dead american ambassador and three diplomats and a country not really controlled by its own government. are we any better off? so there is so much skepticism as lauren pointed out, within the media but it mostly is based on america's previous experiences using force projecting force, mostly on its own. jon: let me take you to the second part of that charles krauthamer column because he touches on some of those points that you just made, judy. he also wrote last year, mr. obama told us repeatedly that the tide of war is receding. this year he grandly declared that the entire war o
communications director for president george w. bush and senior adviser for the 2008 mccain presidential campaign, nicolle wallace. >> she's great. >> she's amazing. msnbc contributor mike barnicle. and in washington, pulitzer-prize winning columnist and associate editor of the -- >> amazon -- >> newly sold "washington post," wow, big news there, in your world, gene. we'll talk about that. >> no free shipping for you, mika. >> he's like the free shipping czar now. >> my goodness. none for me. >> all right. mike barnicle, this is like a big day -- >> mike, this is huge. >> this is. >> this is -- >> i was surprised. >> as willie was saying last night at the holiday inn, the plates are shifting under the media world and then we had a couple smokes and watched old reruns of "night of a thousand". >> you ran out of cigarettes before i got there. >> one pack talking about the globe, another pack -- >> the sale of the post as i'm sure gene will have more to say on this, it was stunning. >> it's an earthquake. >> stunning. >> but no family, few families who have owned newspapers have been better at it an
and compare it for us in modern history, current history for example contrasted with the way george w. bush took this nation to the war. >> if president bush took america to war quite quickly and didn't nurture a bipartisan consensus in some ways he used it around for the hid. ki wasn't able to persuade other countries, many other countries with the exception of britain and a few others that it was worth fighting and so america more or less went in to hit by himself. the book tells the story of an incredible effort over the course of two years to build a domestic consensus in favor of internationalism and ultimately intervention and he was prepared to use other countries as proxy's by allowing the brits and the french. he was prepared to take this kind and roosevelt was criticized almost as much he felt he was going too fast. he felt he was going too slowly. he did it carefully and slowly. that is the reaction to the events and get. when you step back and look at the whole run there is a direction as kurt says he knew where he wanted to end up but he wanted to do it in a way that took the c
, and compare it with what current history contrast to the way george debut bush took them but different conflicts of different styles but if they took him to work quite quickly she could nurture more into in some ways he would beat them around the headed cannot persuade many other countries that it was worth fighting so roosevelt is the opposite this book tells the story of this incredible effort although subtle over the course of two years to build the of bipartisan domestic consensus in adults and early intervention and prepared to use other countries to feed from behind -- leave them behind and was prepared to take his time. in fact, the result was criticized almost as much to felt he was going too fast period he did it it. >> is a very clear direction but he wanted to do is no way that that the country did not into the ward / e merge united and ready for the fight. >> again and 11 came at the beginning. >> and pearl harbor helped. it totally destroyed isolationism in the united states at that time. but by then roosevelt had marginalized the bodies through the danish with the decisio
, therefore, george bush could say, well, don't pay into it. simply give each potential -- each person a fund. you monetize your deferred compensation. it's a terrible idea. it further damages the ability of people to have a social thing. and by the way, the link to having a social wage is that it's dramatic create important for society. -- dramatically important for society. because then people start to see objectively their interests are united. you know, one of the great tricks of american history is rather than do countercyclical spending through social expenditure, countercyclical spending in america has always been done through military spending. you spend militarily to bring the economy back to life. that was the whole post-war golden age, etc. so in that sense one has to confront this idea, you know, because it was easy to do countercyclical spending with the military because it's already a hierarchical society, you know, in military encampments. but society is not hierarchical, and the more you begin to feel objectively that your ties with other people are there, you might be able to
an issue of some level of hypocrisy in terms of the outrange that was heaped upon the george bush administration with respect to afghanistan and iraq. but there are some slight differences here. one to do with the documented facts of the u.s. of chemical weapons. number two, the general sense that this regime is unhenged and therefore needs to be contained in a way that you didn't necessarily see with the likes of some of the other players over the last few years, whether you're talking iran or whatever. so, i think that there's a different tone that you have with syria that you didn't have with the others. again, i harken back to similarities to kosovo from humanitarian perspective but it does put the democrats in a very ticklish box right now, particularly given the warriness of the american host: jim is on the line from texas. republican line. is whatmy question about this tainted election -- the obama administration. guest: in what respect? irs.r: the guest: the irs is a huge issue. i do not know how that translated in terms of a repressed election. that mightgroups have been
chief of staff to president george w. bush and a fox news contributor with us from his home in austin, texas. you wrote a piece in the wall street journal, i know you've got a white board, too, so i'll get you to explain it. you call it the un affordable careless act. actually, that was a great line by the headline writer, but my piece was about the unintended consequences of the bill. president obama never sold the affordable care act to the american people by saying, look, this is going to create more part-time jobs in the place of full-time jobs, and yet that's one of big consequences of the bill. if you take a look at it, under the affordable care act a full-time worker is defined as somebody who works as 30 hours or more a a week, and if you work 30 hours or more a week, your employer has to provide you with health insurance coverage. now, this encourages a disincentive to employ people over 30 hours. the number of people who are working 30-34 hours a week has dropped 146,500 on average a month. the number of people working 25-29 hours a week has risen 119,000 on average per mont
not made a decision yet, former president george w. bush is weighing in. >> the president has a tough decision to make and if he decides to use our military, he'll have the greatest military ever backing him up. i was not a fan of mr. assad. he's an ally of iran and he made mischief. the president has to make a tough call. i know you are trying to suddenly rope me into the issues of the day. i refuse to be roped in. >> our chief political analyst gloria borger joins me from washington. you listened to secretary of state john kerry today. you heard the former president, reporters trying to ask questions of him. it's not a matter of what do we do about it, we be the united states? >> i think if you listened to the secretary of state, it was very clear that he believed he didn't need to wait for information from the weapons inspectors, from the united nations. he said very clearly that a u.n. investigators can't tell us anything we don't already know. and between the secretary of state and a background call that senior administration officials had with journalists, it's very clear they b
hardly ever come up. they were attacking dick cheney, attacking george bush with, attacking the fbi and others, nsa had pretty much been unscathed in all this. the only time it really came up as a matter of debate in the intelligence committee was people from the nsa coming forward and saying what a rough time they were having with the fisa court, how hard it was for them to get court orders, how hard it was to be able to follow up on the information they were getting. this is not a rubber stamp. this is constantly scrutinized. it's also scrutinized by the house and senate intelligence committees. i worry saying congress is keeping an eye on it for you isn't exactly a vote of confidence. but, seriously, people on the intelligence committee take it very seriously. i can tell you that this stuff is looked at very, very carefully. so i think we have to keep all of this in mind. i don't see any significant violation of civil liberties. i don't see any significant -- to me, if we have a balanced thought like with zazi in 2009, zazi, and this is one of those forest gump moments where you
to talk about the cause of this and we took a little bit of heat from the george w. bush campaign is for not being prepared to wage traditional conflict due to the task force is. this would be the most likely vehicle also in the professional military education sphere. the peacekeeping stabilization operation institute and the u.s. army war college in the national defense immigration will continue to be part of this is expertise onto which we can draw. but i do expect good compared to matters. one case study talks about how it took more care can work anywhere. >> we have about six people so far and maybe a few others to try to fit you all in. >> hello, my name is piers martin and i'm here at the georgetown university. my question is related to one of the main ideas which is to broaden our positions and a conflict that was one of the first reactions from the united states is reaction and the european union started. working and building of institutions for common security and defense policy. as there seems to be quite a change of discussion right now because the discussions we are ha
homeland security adviser to president george w. bush. she currently serves on the cia's external advisory board as well. we're talking about intercepting some sort of communication between the al qaeda leader and someone else, what does that mean? >> it's unlikely he would have sent an e-mail himself because that would have invited drone strike. it's more likely he'll use the technique that bin laden did, give a note to a courier on a thumb drive who would send it to yemen. >> fran, you're an expert on this subject. a sensitive subject. now that he and his top aides now the u.s. intercepted this communication between the al qaeda leader and someone else presumably al qaeda and the arabian peninsula, they suspect the u.s. has this capability and they're going to try to change their communications so this will undermine what the u.s. had, right? >> wolf, that's exactly right. which explains why u.s. government officials initially asked media outlets to please not report that it was a communication between them. those two individuals understand precisely how they communicated, whether it was
, for operations are supported, we cut the budget and increased the number of overseas activities, and george w. bush did not run for president -- if you go back to his campaign, he did not run promising a big defense buildup and he was not intending to make foreign policy the centerpiece of his policy, and he ended up making the most fraught decision about the war in iraq. i do not think cutting our military will be the best way to keep us out of trouble in the south china sea. i want steadiness and resolve and let's sustain the rebalance. that means we can make modest cuts in defense. >> amen. i feel like i should applaud. i think that was very powerful on michael's part. i would not put all my eggs in one basket. i want peace through strength or a modern-day version of it because i want a military that deters. i want other things, too. i want strong allies, our partners' capacity to be robust enough to defend themselves if needed and take care of their neighborhoods, so to speak. i want all of our tools of soft power to be effective, partly through the reinforcement from our hard power. i wa
. it was never approved by congress. if george w. bush would have done that we would have had impeachment. we have part of our laws unilaterally suspended by the president by the year before he said he couldn't do that. there is just a variety of issues like that where he has gone outside. we have tension within our system and struggles facing congress and the president but this one is very serious. i think you will see it continue that there will be legal cases. all the way back here. i'm going to try to bounce around a little bit but again we will get to everybody. we are going to wear willful excel. >> thank you. i was concerned to find out you were not in support of making the continuing resolution contention upon removing what optional spending you can remove on obamacare. i feel strongly and i think others do and i speak from a point -- [applause] this is not theoretical for me because two weeks ago today my husband and i paid in cash for her son to have major surgery a four-hour procedure but that is the price i pay for the liberty of my children. i am self-employed and understand the
party chairman george h.w. bush. >> i really was proud of you. i know it was tough. >> and ronald reagan. >> we're still behind you out here and i want you to know that you're in our prayers. >> how nice of you to say that. >> this too shall pass. >> everything passes. thank you. >> reporter: but of course watergate didn't pass, and several years later in a long interview with david frost, nixon said he wished that he had ordered them to carry out the destruction of the tapes. he also told the speechwriter of that april address to add a paragraph saying that he, the president, might have to resign. he didn't say it that night, but it happened 16 months later in august of 1974. gayle, charlie. >> thank you, bill. president nixon spoke with bob haldeman three days after the watergate break-in when investigators listened to the tapes, there was an 18 1/2 minute gap in that recording from june 20th, 1972. it became one of the biggest mysteries of watergate. nixon's secretary, rosemary wood, said she erased the tape accidentally by stepping on a pedal while reaching for the telephone. after a
on the others i think it's a war. medal was approved by congress, not a dime ever voted for it. had george w. bush had done that i think we would have heard cries of impeachment. we are part of our immigration laws, and i was suspended by the president when the year before he said he couldn't do that. there's just a variety of issues like that when he's gone outside. we have to tension with our system, struggles between congress and the president, but this one is very cities. you will see it continue. but there will be legal cases. all the way back. i'm going to try to bounce around all of it. it begin, we will get to everybody. >> i was a little concerned to find that you are not in support of making the continuing resolution contingent upon removing what optional spending you can remove on obamacare. i feel very strongly. i think the other speaker i speak from my point of view -- applaud not this is not theoretical because two weeks ago today my husband and i paid in cash for our son to have major surgery. a four-hour procedure. that's the price i pay for the liberty of my children. i'm se
for and what you were responsible for. >> guest: i served under but george w. bush administration and was appointed by the transportation secretary norman. and as you may know, he is a democrat who served in the republican administration and he was responsible for offering and then congress passed a reorganization act that led to the creation of this agency. and this agency fmsa receives a million daily shipments of hazardous air, land, truck, and sea, dessel and pipeline. >> host: you're current work with the national transportation advisers, what is that? >> guest: i am a lawyer by training and we also have a consulting practice. so, we talk infrastructure projects, transportation projects to both public and private sector clients. >> host: is one of your clients keystone xl? is anybody supporting trans canada? >> guest: no, sir. >> host: as far as keystone xl is concerned, the decision that you were taking, where do you stand if it shouldn't be built on the extension we've been talking about? >> guest: i've been monitoring this for several years. when i was at the d.o.t. the or
, boom, we saved george h.w. bush. race among we are stuck. we knew 100 years before the while thers, police let john mohammed go at least nine times, that racial profiles are problematic. question is, what can we do about it? weneed to keep doing what have just done in new york city where we passed the community what is a, because failure or for national security is a failure for neighborhood security. we need to focus on people's behavior, not on their race. ed last summer said derisively's officer working a neighborhood and he had a black and latino neighborhood and he had a suspect description of a race sucked -- rape suspect. he came across four young ladies sitting on a stoop, and said, have you seen this guy? no.soaid, they then stopped and frisked then. law enforcement is not that different from anything else. if you do one thing, you're not doing something else, so you better be doing the right thing. if you are searching for a rape suspect and you decide to stop and check if these for girls have a joint in their pocket, you are no longer looking for the rape suspect. that i
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27